Partial Justice: Odey’s Collapse Offers a Sense of Retribution

JPMorgan Chase’s involvement in the Jeffrey Epstein case has proven to be the final straw for Odey Asset Management. Despite internal warnings about Epstein’s behavior, JPM continued to keep him as a client and recently agreed to pay up to $290 million to his sex crime survivors. In a surprising turn of events, JPM also terminated its prime brokerage and custody arrangement with Odey, which was crucial for the survival of the London firm.

This decision came just days after the Financial Times published a damning report detailing numerous sexual assault, abuse, and harassment accusations against Crispin Odey, the founder and boss of Odey Asset Management. At least 13 women, including former staff, clients, and acquaintances, have come forward with allegations against Odey.

Odey Asset Management has quickly moved towards its own demise, with the firm discussing the transfer of its funds to other asset management groups. Several funds have already been closed or suspended as investors hurriedly withdraw their funds. Additionally, Odey himself has been forced out, despite being the firm’s dominant shareholder.

While there are distinct differences between the Epstein and Odey cases, with no suggestion of Odey preying on underage girls, both situations may lead to legal action. Odey may contest his forced departure from his own firm, and there may be lawsuits against him and the firm from those he is alleged to have abused.

Rumors and allegations surrounding Odey have circulated for years, with a criminal trial in 2020 even accusing him of indecent assault. Although he was acquitted, multiple potential complainants could pursue fresh criminal complaints against him under the Protection from Harassment Act. However, successfully prosecuting Odey may prove challenging due to the historic nature of the allegations and the high burden of proof required for a guilty verdict.

Civil cases provide another avenue for legal action, where claimants must prove their case based on a balance of probabilities within the relevant limitation period. This route could be pursued alongside a criminal case and may result in lawsuits against the hedge fund, senior partners, and Odey himself. Some junior women who were allegedly assaulted by Odey argue that other staff members, including partners, helped shield him by placing the responsibility on the women to avoid compromising situations.

Odey Asset Management’s internal investigation in recent years has proven ineffective, with more women potentially being put at risk within the firm. Holding the firm and its senior partners accountable from both a moral and legal standpoint is justified. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act and negligence principles, a personal injury claim can be made, with the employer potentially being liable for the actions of senior employees.

However, even if a successful civil lawsuit is pursued, the compensation awarded is usually limited, often based on lost earnings. Higher damages may be possible if severe or lasting psychological damage can be proven. Unfortunately, the women involved have missed the opportunity for substantial financial redress through an employment tribunal due to a three-month limitation period. This highlights a significant difference between the UK system and the US system, where punitive damages are more common.

The situation with Odey feels even less satisfactory than JPM’s handling of the Epstein case. Despite being pushed out of his own hedge fund group, Odey is still walking away with an estimated £600 million of his own managed money, much of which is believed to be the result of his alleged abuses over the past three decades. This outcome does not feel like justice.

[email protected]